↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of candidate reference genes for quantitative real-time PCR analysis in a male rat model of dietary iron deficiency

Overview of attention for article published in Genes & Nutrition, October 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of candidate reference genes for quantitative real-time PCR analysis in a male rat model of dietary iron deficiency
Published in
Genes & Nutrition, October 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12263-021-00698-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna L. Fiddler, Stephen L. Clarke

Abstract

Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is a reliable and efficient method for quantitation of gene expression. Due to the increased use of qPCR in examining nutrient-gene interactions, it is important to examine, develop, and utilize standardized approaches for data analyses and interpretation. A common method used to normalize expression data involves the use of reference genes (RG) to determine relative mRNA abundance. When calculating the relative abundance, the selection of RG can influence experimental results and has the potential to skew data interpretation. Although common RG may be used for normalization, often little consideration is given to the suitability of RG selection for an experimental condition or between various tissue or cell types. In the current study, we examined the stability of gene expression using BestKeeper, comparative delta quantitation cycle, NormFinder, and RefFinder in a variety of tissues obtained from iron-deficient and pair-fed iron-replete rats to determine the optimal selection among ten candidate RG. Our results suggest that several commonly used RG (e.g., Actb and Gapdh) exhibit less stability compared to other candidate RG (e.g., Rpl19 and Rps29) in both iron-deficient and iron-replete pair-fed conditions. For all evaluated RG, Tfrc expression significantly increased in iron-deficient animal livers compared to the iron-replete pair-fed controls; however, the relative induction varied nearly 4-fold between the most suitable (Rpl19) and least suitable (Gapdh) RG. These results indicate the selection and use of RG should be empirically determined and RG selection may vary across experimental conditions and biological tissues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 25%
Student > Bachelor 1 25%
Unknown 2 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 25%
Neuroscience 1 25%
Unknown 2 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2021.
All research outputs
#20,710,927
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from Genes & Nutrition
#351
of 391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#357,552
of 433,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genes & Nutrition
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 391 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 433,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.